+of+Eiffel19.jpg)
Consider the pragmatic perspective. Does it make sense to think of communication as patterned interaction? How is communication like a game? How is it different from a game?
According to Sarah Trenholm, “In a pragmatic model, communication is seen as a game of sequential, interlocking moves between interdependent partners. Each player responds to the partner’s moves in light of his or her own strategy and in anticipation of future action. Some moves are specific to this game, and others are common gambits or strategies. All moves make sense only in the context of the game. Outcomes, or payoffs, are a result of patterned “play” between partners” (Trenholm 2008, pg. 33).
In one sense, I believe communication is like a game of patterned interaction. I love the game of backgammon. When I first learned the game, I was told the four and six points were the first areas to setup to secure your position in winning the game. In the same way, I think communication is a like a game. When you first meet someone at a party, you have to establish the foundation whether you want to speak with him or her. In your mind, you may go through your criteria of whether s/he is worth having a conversation. If so, the exchange of ideas goes back and forth. Like in tennis you rally back and forth until someone may say something that is not appropriate or just says the wrong thing. Then, either one of one of you will move on to someone else at the party.
In contrast, communication is different from a game when a student attends a class and the professor gives a lecture for an hour. In this case, the student is on the receiving end. S/he may be able to ask questions at the end of the lecture or through the teacher’s aide.
Paris,
ReplyDeleteI can agree with you when you say that communication is like a game. For example, the dating scene is such a competitive arena. Each person has to kind of guess and find out what the intention is of the other person. Then when they finally do figure it out, either they will play along by flirting or if the other person doesn’t really like the other person they might have to figure out another way to get the other person interested again. Sometimes guys use pick up lines and such. So it is up to us to one-up the other depending on the situation.
gOod Post...see ya later
Hi Paris,
ReplyDeleteI like your analogy of the tennis game relating to a communication in that during the conversations, we rally back and forth with our statements. The statements that we decide to make depends solely on the statements that the other person makes. This is definitely true in a setting of a party, a meet and greet, and a simple conversation. But when the conversation or relationship gets more complex, I can't see how an individual can witness from a pragmatic perspective. When the relationship gets more complex, it is much more than interdependent interactions. The individuals or partners should take into considerations of certain circumstances surrounding their conversation, the personality, and desires and needs of one another. I like the pragmatic model because it kind of give me an unselfish way of looking at things. Rather than looking at a dysfunctional relationship and saying, "What is up with her?" It makes me say instead, "What did I do to hurt her or cause her to be so angry?" From that point of view, I was able to pin point what I did wrong and learn from my mistakes in dealing with future roommates.
Hey PARIS,
ReplyDeleteThe game analogy is fabulous. Its so true. If you see someone you want to meet you sort of go back and fourth. You may even make subtle non-verbal communication back and fourth until someone makes the "move".
There are sort of steps to lead up to it. You first must establish whether you want to talk to them or not, then you have to decide how and when. There are almost rules that are often followed. For example, some people think it is strange to come off too strong, this may be seen as "breaking the rules" in some peoples eyes.
ut I may have to respectfully disagree with you about whether or not school is like a game. Yes, some teachers are direct and say what they want and the students will perform to their best ability. But some teachers seem to want to play games (its not often, but I have had a few), they are not direct about what they want and they want to see how much the students care. It is pretty annoying, and a game that is not very fun at all . :)
Great posts, keep up the interesting blogging!
ImaginePeace
I love how you actually equated the statement that communication was a game to actual games! Conversation is very much like tennis—rallying back and forth, and it takes a lot of strategy, just like communication does. If you’re just starting out, you’ll have to learn the results of each type of hit—whether you want the ball to come down directly over net or flying straight at your opponent. In new communication settings, we also have to learn which actions result in what reactions. What will happen if I’m friendly with this person? What will happen if I’m standoffish? Every time the outcomes of our action are as intended, we know to repeat them when desiring the same result. And just like a game, the more we play, the better we get.
ReplyDelete